tv [untitled] April 20, 2012 9:30am-10:00am PDT
that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- recognized neighborhood? >> that was a public submission boundary. mr. mcdonnell: what is the first letter? >> p. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it is a p. >> excuse my spelling error. >> that is why we are editing. mr. mcdonnell: ok. again, we have selma, treasure
submitted neighborhood boundaries for yerba buena. there is not a boundary from planned neighborhoods. mr. pilpel: i think this is referring to treasure island and yerba buena island, not yerba buena center. >> they are recommending it as a neighborhood based on public testimony, as i recall. mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to list yerba buena. >> maybe it was one of the colored maps.
mr. mcdonnell: then we will not list it. any objection? mr. pilpel: i would separate them, but i don't care that strongly. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to adding central waterfront? >> i thought it was part of the dog patch. mr. mcdonnell: we will not add. moving -- we are not moving. >> did i hear this call likely from the consultants that there is no neighborhood called yerba buena? >> not a publicly submitted neighborhood. >> it seems to me it is common knowledge where it is. mr. mcdonnell: we agreed to err on the conservative side.
for purposes of reporting and listing, we will not include it. mr. pilpel: can i ask for a vote or whatever we are doing here on come binding -- combining these to instead read "south of market"? i think that is more of a generally recognized neighborhood. i'm concerned the other name is not a recognized neighborhood in the way that these others are. that is all. >> it is a planning department- approved neighborhood. it is historical. mr. pilpel: it is a sub area within south of market. mr. alonso: are we in agreement that we know where it exists?
mr. mcdonnell: i believe so. mr. alonso: and i'm pretty sure it does not matter. mr. mcdonnell: mr. pilpel has proposed it. mr. pilpel: i would probably be ok with it as is. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to the insertion? ok. that includes district 6. only five more to go. >> this is long. mr. mcdonnell: district 7. so -- ms. tidwell: this gets to the
consultants point that i listed out all of the neighborhoods and they just included them as listed in the [mumbling] boundaries. mr. mcdonnell: i am not sure what your point was. ms. tidwell: just explaining the difference. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. beginning with the consultants. let's go the other way around. any deletions? jamie?
are there any of these that we should not list? >> i do not believe so. i think this is a great list. mr. mcdonnell: you think this is a great list? all in favor? all: aye. >> if they have submitted their boundaries, also a list of neighborhoods that are included in the central council, then i think this is representative of those neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: ok. any objection to leading the list as is? -- leaving the list as is? mr. pilpel: do we need to add san francisco state university? mr. mcdonnell: no institutions. mr. pilpel: i would add lake merced. mr. mcdonnell: jamie?
if jamie says it is recognized, we will list. >> it is based on the department of elections definition. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: did we add clinton heights -- clarington heights? not the whole thing? park merced? mr. mcdonnell: ok. we are not attempting to create an exhaustive list. this is one that does not need as a vacation. district 8. -- need justification.
it is changing. >> i withdraw the comment. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so, we have -- can -- >> can i suggest eureka valley? ms. tidwell: i just deleted eureka valley. some of those are encompassed with what the other neighborhoods are. mr. pilpel: i don't think i agree with that. i think eureka valley is in district 8.
>> adding eureka valley. mr. mcdonnell: there is no need to create an exhaustive list. mr. pilpel: ok. all right. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? moving then to d 9. mr. pilpel: i would suggest vernal heights. mr. mcdonnell: objections? >> i will turn this over to the consultant. >> there is no publicly cemented
neighborhood boundary. -- publicly submitted neighborhood boundaries. it is split in the department of elections. >> i am willing to call it north and south. it is in district 9. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? >> looking at the -- is this planning more elections? looking at the planning department map, the corners have been moved into district 8. that is the this is the area between cesar chavez and south of randall, between mission and san jose avenue.
that is just according to the planning. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so we have one neighborhood list aed. anyone else. all right, moving into district 10. again, the note on the consultants listing gets eliminated, but and the reference to san francisco general hospital eliminated, therefore we have silver terrace, this the valley, the or hollywood, bay view heights,
bayview, hunters point, the central waterfront, dog patch. jamie, of those, which should be eliminated because we do not have recognized neighborhoods or public submission? >> we did not have visitation, i believe the same is true of bayview hunters point. mr. pilpel: i would still include them. i think we should recognize them. and i think we should still candlestick properly -- we should spell candlestick properly. >> i don't know if they gave specific boundaries, and is that why it is not recognized? i believe we have kept that as a whole. >> sorry, i believe bayview,
hunters point, i was incorrect about that. it should be listed. mr. pilpel: and i think potrero is potrero. mr. mcdonnell: bayview, hunters point is fine. >> it is split according to the the department of elections, the planning neighborhood, as submitted. mr. mcdonnell: it is not included? i'm sorry, let's go back, silver terrace days in. visitation valley? >> no. mr. mcdonnell: does not stay in. little hollywood? ms. lee? so there is still confusion. be conservative, air on the side
of exclusion, which is where i thought the land? >> yes, to all of the above. it is your call to make. it is fine if it is the basis of public testimony, but i would encourage you to err on the side of being conservative. this is not supposed to represent all neighborhoods, it is suppose to be ones where you have to recognize the neighborhoods intact in their entirety. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. pilpel: to that end, i think all of candlestick is in 10, and i would add showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: again, we don't need an exhaustive list. it is actually even under 1%. all of that said, any objection to candlestick? silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick, spelled correctly --
mr. pilpel: out include civista valley. sorry. -- i would include at vista valid. sorry. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to the list as presented here? mr. pilpel: yes. mr. mcdonnell: ok. go ahead. mr. pilpel: ok. what are you proposing it is in? mr. mcdonnell: propose what you want, it does not matter. mr. pilpel: silver terrace, candlestick, the central waterfront/dog patch, showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: any objection? it ms. tidwell: yes. i was attempting to be helpful by adding neighborhoods.
with 16th street, i don't think we have included potrero, and the ones we have highlighted with issues. mr. mcdonnell: okay, that is what objection. ok, list them off. one more time. >> silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick. ms. tidwell: isn't candlestick -- isn't that an institution? >> i think there is a candlestick neighborhood. ms. tidwell: you think, or there is? >> ok, we will exclude candlestick. bayview hunters point, potrero hill, and showplace square. ms. tidwell: i don't think -- sorry, what ever.
ms. lam: i think there are concerns including potrero hill as an interactive neighborhood. could we show you the map? mr. pilpel: i suggest we just excluded. i will live with that. i have to go at about 45 minutes. >> i had to go about an hour and half ago. i will go another 45 minutes. mr. mcdonnell: ok. district 11. we have parker amazon, excelsior. any additions?
>> mission terrace, there it is. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? >> i want to ask the consultants, it is the filipino community corridor and recognize that could? -- is that a recognized neighborhood? >> could you repeat that? >> my question is, is the filipino community corridor on mission street recognized neighborhood? i think there was a map submitted that was called the filipino corridor. >> i don't think we have that on our list of recognized -- of our list of submitted neighborhoods. >> yes, we did, it was submitted. ms. tidwell: i guess it was not clear to us at that time.
>> i am trying to get to the member proposal. >> i'm sorry, what did you say? >> it was not clear to us that was a neighborhood a proposal, so we did not digitize it. >> so, how are we -- how can we resolve that? >> is it a neighborhood or more properly a committee of interest? >> i thought it was a neighborhood, the way the map was submitted, but i realize that was not digitized. >> so, yeah, do you have the map with you?
>> i do. give me a few minutes, though. mr. mcdonnell: we can't want to hurry up and slow down at the same time. it does not work that way. for the purposes of ms. tidwell and the edits that need to be made, there is the adding of the individual member submissions as agreed upon in to the lessons and recommendations section. there is one area of editing. there is also the editing that member pilpel has to do with
respect to district 7 that has to happen during the break, as well as -- sorry, there was a third piece to handle during the break. yes? >> we do have numbers on the dates the task force was convened. it was checked, the population variation numbers. we could make this at its during the break. mr. mcdonnell: okay, excellent. is there anything else to add during the break? >> just on the website. >> perhaps any edits that are made could be made in red so that can be easily seen. mr. mcdonnell: ok. by that clock, 20 after, thank you. public comment was the proposal that we adopted, and contract with public
entities was a member mon dejar's section. member pilpel's was just cut and paste, and then we still have the appendices, which i don't think we have really gotten to. mr. mcdonnell: stay there for just a moment. so we have indicated we will have the final map. the district descriptions, the individual district maps.
there was something else. >> the final map, district descriptions, district statistics. mr. mcdonnell: yeah, that word, statistics. >> caskey timing question? mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> some of these pieces will take some time to prepare, but i assume the task force will want to publish immediately. would it be possible to add a note saying, "to be added"? mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> and then we will replace it. mr. pilpel: or along those lines, could we allow the publication of an executive summary when all of these pieces exist, so the map itself is
available immediately, and as these pieces are assembled in the next couple days, then the final report will then exist? mr. mcdonnell: i don't think she was referring to the final map. but the final map will take time. mr. pilpel: all right. mr. mcdonnell: ok. with respect to the report -- >> yes, on the list of appendices, we're going to include the statistics and the community newspaper advertisements? mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> ok. >> man asked the question considering the district descriptions? mr. mcdonnell: what we were referring to, i believe they were separate, but the
description to have done as we have completed each of the draft maps. >> i see, thank you. mr. mcdonnell: okay, any other additions to the appendices? >> i asked if that is duplicative? >> needs and bounce our defense from the district descriptions. they will take about eight, 10 hours. little description as a rough summer rates so that people can follow along. we have the district descriptions, and those are already on the website. i'm not sure if you wanted us to do district descriptions before those are completed. there are more formal.
-- they are mor formal. >> when i spoke with john, he indicated before the actual final map, he would have to work with the consultant. since they are waiting for precincts and such, he was indicating a final product would not be available for about a month or more. maybe just the final draft map, where we are doing it now with descriptions? like, monday? >> i think he might be talking about something different. they're starting to precinct monday, based on our lines, and then they're making allies available five years. they're getting a final map. >> right, he was indicating by the time -- it would take a month, but i could talk to him about that. >> will have a final map for
taskforce purposes at the end of this meeting. but elections will not publish its map with the new district until -- >> right, and we will also have it on the web. mr. mcdonnell: sure, thank you. >> clarification of statistics? what will that cover again? mr. pilpel: i think i raised the question in this meeting. i'm not sure what is possible, but what i was referring to was that the statistics that were shown in the 2000 redrawing, that describes some of it. for each district, the population, the deviation from the mean, expressed in numbers as well as percentage, statistics around out race and ethnicity